Thread 106544107

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/09/09/iphone-17-n1-chip/

>The N1 is a networking chip. It supports Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread. Because Apple was able to create the chip to integrate with other hardware and software in the iPhone, it's more efficient and it offers improved reliability.

>According to Apple, the N1 chip improves the performance and reliability of features like Personal Hotspot and AirDrop. The N1 will replace networking chips that Apple previously sourced from suppliers like Broadcom.

Competition is good, but /g/ will find a way to shit on this. Broadcom can fuck themselves.

Most people on /g/ don't even have phones that do Wifi7, BT6 and Thread in 1 chip.

What does the N stand for?

>>106544107 (OP)
Bigger.

>>106544110
true

>>106544107 (OP)
likely stands for Network/Networking

>>106544107 (OP)
>Because Apple was able to create the chip (...) it's more efficient and it offers improved reliability.
kek

>>106544200
Makes sense. Apple didn't own the hardware before. You dumb or something?

>>106544107 (OP)
Apple's N1163R chip offers improved network reliability to better track niggers using iPhone

>>106544210
It implies that because Apple made it, it's better than the competition by default (also indirectly implying the current non-N1 phones are less reliable and less efficient). All of this is bullshit.

>>106544107 (OP)
What competition? Apple isn't going to sell this chip. They're just continuing to vertically structure their supply chain.

>>106544225
>It implies that because Apple made it, it's better than the competition by default
No. It is saying that the N1 chip is more integrated with the rest of the iphone than broadcom's chip so it will make iphone features like airdrop more reliable. Try reading you stupid brown fuck.

>>106544107 (OP)
Nigger

>>106544235
>What competition?
Broadcom is losing money now because they no longer can sell to Apple. The N1 chip is a new competitor.

networking god here
never heard of thread

>>106544238
>the N1 chip is more integrated with the rest of the iphone
It isn't, and this was also never a problem before they made the N1. It's just more marketing wank from Apple.

>>106544249
It's IP over the same physical layer as Zigbee (IEEE 802.15.4).

>>106544249
>never heard of thread
https://www.threadgroup.org/What-is-Thread/Overview

>>106544255
>It isn't
Yes it is you dumb fuck. It's a custom-made in-house chip. They can't modify the broadcom chips since it is not their IP, but now they control their own chips.

>>106544274
>They can't modify the broadcom chips since it is not their IP
They never needed to, yet now claim otherwise. I don't believe Apple, and never will.

>>106544280
>They never needed to
Why not? They made their own SOC? They might as well create all their own hardware. You're just being negative for no reason, and if you support giving Broadcom money, you're a stupid fuck.

>>106544246
It's not a competitor. No matter how good a chip Broadcom makes, Apple will use their own now.
This isn't about competition, it is about vertically structuring their products.

>>106544291
>It's not a competitor.
Yes it is. The N1 is now competing against broadcom chips in other devices. The N1 will eventually replace all the broadcom chips in Mac, iPad, Homepad, everything with Wifi/BT. Broadcom was dealt a huge blow, the same as when Intel was dealt a huge blow when Apple switched to their M series chips.

>apple in charge of networking
are they still using the freebsd tcp/ip stack from the 90s that can easily get shit on by a syn flood? will they ever fix dns? and they think they can do hardware? broadcom sucks but applel lmao

>>106544210
How's that Apple Intelligence going for them? Ended up running towards a third party, right?

>>106544336
>they think they can do hardware?
the m series of chips is honestly really solid, what are you talking about?

>>106544346
not hardware. don't care.

>>106544346
>How's that Apple Intelligence going for them? Ended up running towards a third party, right?
doesn't that defeat your argument that apple will always create their own thing?

>>106544336
>and they think they can do hardware?
You've clearly never used the M4.

>>106544107 (OP)
>N-Chip
>Makes it much easier to steal neighbours WiFi

>>106544306
Again, no, because Apple is now GOING TO USE N1. There is no competition. Broadcom is not even on the table anymore. And Apple is not going to be selling the N1 for use in non-Apple devices.
The same thing with Intel and the M series. Once Apple decided to move to their own chips, every "competitor" was now off the table. Intel could have made a wonder chip that kicked the shit out of M in performance and efficiency, and Apple would not have used it. It wouldn't have mattered.

>>106544107 (OP)
>N1
GGER?

>>106544530
This is like saying there's no competition between iPhone and Galaxy phones because they make their own chips. Broadcom lost a huge contract and they have to recoup by making chips for other companies.

>>106544571
>This is like saying there's no competition between iPhone and Galaxy phones because they make their own chips.
That's competition in a different market.

>>106544577
It's competition, period. You think Broadcom is no longer a company?

>>106544107 (OP)
wow a new chip that works even better for hotspot, which works flawlessly on android for years. apple has absolutely been dead since steve jobs died. what a horrible joke of a company.

>>106544530
stop arguing with retards

>>106544588
Are you actually fucking dense?
For there to actually be competition, Apple would still have to consider buying Broadcom chips, or Apple would have to consider selling chips outside their own products.
Once they have made a decision to only use their own chips, it doesn't matter what Broadcom does. Broadcom could make the best chip ever and Apple won't consider it. Apple is just doing their own shit now.
Apple is not selling their chips into the other markets that Broadcom feeds, so there's no competition there either.
Apple is just walling themselves off. They're isolating themselves.

>>106544350
>>106544376
one would think that even a retard would be able to tell by context that I'm talking about networking and not compute but I guess not

>>106544632
brownest comment I've ever read jfc

>>106544774
I guess browns really are going to take over the world then.

>>106544249
>networking god here
>never heard of thread
s/god/retard/i

>>106544894
I hadn't either and then I found out it was IoT shit, so not worth knowing about.

>>106544933
Are you poor?
State of the art in home automation.

>>106544961
Miss me with that security nightmare shit.

>>106544156
Bigger.

>>106544632
>For there to actually be competition, Apple would still have to consider buying Broadcom chips, or Apple would have to consider selling chips outside their own products.
Holy shit you are dumb. You can compete simply by disrupting the chip market and adding a new player, and Apple is now a new player in their own products. Broadcom was a partner but is now competing against Apple.

>>106544107 (OP)
I'm don't really like iPhones but honestly this might actually be a good thing.

>>106544998
>and Apple is now a new player in their own products
But they're not because they're not selling the chip!

>>106544998
>and Apple is now a new player in their own products.
No, it is now the only player in their products which is why it's not a competition.

>>106545036
a new player in the market, dumbass.
You think Broadcom is still winning after Apple dumped them?

>rich white people get top tier apple silicon
>poor shitskins get laggy chinkslop

im ok with this

>>106545055
>a new player in the market, dumbass.
But they're not because they're not "in the market"!
They are cutting themselves off from the market. They are walling themselves off. They are isolating themselves.
Why can't you fucking read?

>>106545050
>No, it is now the only player in their products which is why it's not a competition.
Broadcom used to be the only way Apple got Wifi and BT in their products. Are you saying it was more competitive then?

>>106545068
Broadcom was not the only way they could do it. Other companies make Wifi and BT chips.

>>106545066
>But they're not because they're not "in the market"!
They are. They are selling products that used to have Broadcom chips but no more. What if Broadcom also gets shut out by Samsung or other big OEMs that use their chips? They will consider Samsung and such OEMs competitors.

>>106545074
>Broadcom was not the only way they could do it. Other companies make Wifi and BT chips.
And Apple thinks their in-house chip is as good or better than Broadcom's or they wouldn't switch to their own chip because it would hurt their sales if all their products had inferior Wifi and BT after switching. Do you think Broadcom is happy Apple made their own chip or do they see Apple as a threat?

>>106545087
>What if Broadcom also gets shut out by Samsung or other big OEMs that use their chips?
If those companies also create their own chips in house and don't sell them outside their own products, then they're also not competition.
Yes, it sucks for Broadcom as they lose business, but it isn't competition because Broadcom CAN'T COMPETE.

>>106545114
>Do you think Broadcom is happy Apple made their own chip or do they see Apple as a threat?
Not happy but also not a competitive threat, because Apple isn't selling the chips.
Yes, Broadcom loses out, but again it isn't competition because Broadcom can't compete.

>>106545119
>it isn't competition because Broadcom CAN'T COMPETE.
They do compete, through other OEMs like Samsung.

>Apple is one of Broadcom’s biggest customers, accounting for roughly 20% of revenue. Broadcom is scheduled to report its latest quarterly results after the market closes Thursday.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-12/apple-nears-switch-to-in-house-bluetooth-and-wi-fi-chip-for-iphone-home

ouch!

>>106545161
No. You're saying that Broadcom is competing with Apple by install base in percentage of devices. That isn't true, because Apple is stonewalling. Only their devices will have that chip.
If Apple started selling the N1 chip so Samsung could use it in their phones, then it would be competition, otherwise it is just closing off a market.

>>106545185
>The transition is separate from Apple’s highly anticipated shift from Qualcomm Inc. cellular modems — details of which Bloomberg News reported last week — but the two parts will eventually work together.
Yeah, so Apple are still using other Broadcom chips for now.
Again, this is Apple's shift to vertical integration.

>>106544225
Retarded nigger

As a Broadcom investor I laugh at all of you dimwits

>>106544107 (OP)
designed by IDF Unit 8200, so the wise person shan't be using the chip.

>>106544191
N1 is network 1
C1 is cellular 1
What is the M for? Can’t be mobile right? Mac? But it’s on iPads too?

>>106544107 (OP)
>Competition is good, but /g/ will find a way to shit on this
Go fuck yourself, bootlicker.
>What does the N stand for?
Evidently, "No penis," which is your prerogative, champ.

>>106544639
The iPhone 16e already has an Apple-made modem. We are all waiting for your report on that

>>106547622
according to macworld, it's shit: https://www.macworld.com/article/2626940/apple-c1-modem-real-world-tests-iphone-16e-download-upload-speeds-performance.html
how do you feel about that, saar

Thread is gay though.

>>106544249
Nonfree patented garbage that provides meshing for your iot shit. It's actually good, but because of patent horseshit it's unusable.

Yeah but if you need to stick a giant bulge on the back of your phone to fit it inside who the hell cares?

woahh improvements to personal hotspot and airdrop, here take my $1500!!!!!! (i've never once used personal hotspot or airdrop because I'm not a fucking dumb nigger)

>>106544588
I guess every time you cook your own hamburger at home then McDonald’s is competing with you.

You only compete with McDonald’s if you open your own establishment and sell burgers to the public.

>>106544110
kek

>>106548318
Also 25% less power. As the Air/e models are known And such.

>a slightly less shitter version of bluetooth, a technology that has always been dogshit
>repeat for wifi
I don't even know what Thread is, nor do I give a shit

>>106548449
triggered

>>106544964
the point of thread is that it makes “IoT” less “IoT” and more p2p LAN.

>>106544107 (OP)
>takes years to develop a viable chip
>breaking news guys!
lol
>according to apple
will wait until someone credible actually tests it
>What does the N stand for?
Not manufactured by apple.

>>106544200
every single time.

>>106544210
>didn't own the hardware before
good morning, sandeep.

> It supports Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread
So does an ESP32-C6